Spoilers!

Wow. This is grand, epic, film-making. Tarantino has taken the typical revenge plot from the Western (and especially the structure of the Spaghetti Western) and built a film that succeeds in its own right. What’s more it, at least mostly, eschews any annoying in-jokeyness and repetitive pastiche or referencing. Yes Franco Nero cameos, but it’s fairly unobtrusive. The worst moment comes from Tarantino himself, in a short appearance where he appears to mangle a South African accent (at least that’s what I think it was). Django (played with subtlety by Jamie Foxx) is liberated from chains by the pointedly named Dr King Shultz (Christoph Waltz giving essentially the same performance as in Inglourious Basterds) and together they track down the men who took Django’s wife, and eventually the woman herself. If the narrative is admirably simple, it’s the style and performances that make this film excellent. A few bum-notes excepted the cast excel. Leo DeCaprio, as the wonderfully named Calvin Candie, is fantastically deranged (lusting over his own sister while professing a shallow love of French culture), and he plays off Waltz very well, their antagonism rising through the film. Sam Jackson is also good as the ultimate Uncle Tom; he fashions an utterly unlikable character, the most horrendous of a terrible bunch. At the heart, and beyond the little side stories and characters, is a love story well played by Foxx and Kerry Washington (as Broomhilda – this name does make sense). Despite little dialogue they convey longing and love in a very real way. The scenery plays its role too – snow covered vistas and cotton fields – providing a crisp background to the bloody quest. Yes it’s violent – one scene involving a slave and dogs is particularly difficult to watch – but it’s not glorifying in the violence, rather presenting the horrific elements in a style that is itself horrifying. The, literally, explosive ending provides a final catharsis that justifies the horror that has gone before. A must.

A final note. Is it me or is there something to do with food going on in this film? Don Johnson and Sam Jackson too closely resemble Colonel Sanders and Uncle Ben for it to mean nothing.

Ah Postmodernism, the friend of anyone who has nothing to say. Once upon a time it was fresh and interesting. A film that acknowledges it’s a film? How clever, how different. But now every swine with a film camera thinks that he, or her, can hide their paucity of ideas behind the veneer of postmodernism. It’s intertextual see. Or is it bricolage? Or is it just meaningless. The apotheosis of this boring trend are those ‘comedies’ with the word Movie in their title (although they hide a lot now, cf Meet the Spartans & Dance Flick). In these films scenes from other movies are repeated in funny ways. I say funny. I mean crappy. Juxtaposition, another postmodern traits, gets you some laughs but after a while it becomes meaningless (which I guess means it isn’t juxtaposition any more). I blame Scream. Not that Scream is the problem. Quite the opposite, it’s a funny, clever movie (as are, by and large its sequels). Sadly its appearance seemed to convince some people that smart meant referring to other films, even if the reference is meaningless. Oh luck we’re going to dance now like we’re in Pulp Fiction. How clever. But wait, wasn’t Pulp Fiction already being postmodern. What is a reference of a reference? What happens to the original? It’s the guise of intelligence, but its just listing, not understanding. Tarantino is part hero part villain here. Yes his films contain nods to other movies which, at worst, turns his films into a sort of spotters guide to cult films. However he is also a dynamic and creative force in his own right. Sadly a lot of people figured being creative was difficult, so it’s better just to copy (sorry parody/pastiche). Postmodern films can be interesting (JCVD anyone?), but a postmodern approach is inherently risky. In the attempt to demonstrate meaning through reference, emptiness prevails, sound and fury signifying nothing (see what I did there?).

This belated sequel got a bit of a going over by the press when it came out and its poor performance at the box-office nixed any potential new trilogy, but I found myself engaged, entertained and even surprised.

Having watched the original Scream back in my Uni days one of my main pleasures was catching up with Neve Campbell, et al. There was something reassuring in the way things had, or hadn’t moved on – and speculating who had, or hadn’t, had work done. The plot itself played with the concept of endless reboots and replays of earlier horror movies, replicating the knowingness of the original while acknowledging that time, and films, have moved on.

The film wasn’t, however, particularly scary or gory and those who want such elements would be better served elsewhere. If you’re looking for a fun, nostalgic, ride you could do worse.

It was pointed out to me recently that there is a whole generation to who the save icon on Word, et al, has no meaning (can you even buy floppy disks anymore?) This made me think about how advances in computer technology have increased the use of visuals and vocabulary associated with effectively (at least for the majority of users) defunct processes. For instance we still ‘cut and paste’. In Photoshop you ‘dodge and burn’. This is not necessarily new – terminology from specific industries has crossed into the everyday lexicon before (such as ‘mind your ps and qs’ from printing) but the use of the icon, such as that little floppy disk, suggests that the visual signifier is increasingly disassociated from its origin. Empty signifiers are those that have no association, floating have differing or open interpretations. What do modern users make of the save icon? Has it become an empty or floating signifier? And if so do we need to classify signifiers that break from their original association as something new?